Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752701Ab3HEOwM (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:52:12 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:3562 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751860Ab3HEOwK (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:52:10 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=e9yEuNV/ c=1 sm=0 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:17 a=Drc5e87SC40A:10 a=RbvQYlb-YjEA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=aGOhDPDwV-YA:10 a=xJhP3_dnpyAJeebnRKkA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=jeBq3FmKZ4MA:10 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 67.255.60.225 Message-ID: <1375714329.22073.63.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: final fixes for events and some From: Steven Rostedt To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , LKML , Frederic Weisbecker , Masami Hiramatsu , Oleg Nesterov , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Dave Jones Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:52:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130805143257.GA32639@gmail.com> References: <1375712355.22073.45.camel@gandalf.local.home> <20130805143257.GA32639@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2323 Lines: 49 On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 16:32 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > Linus, > > > > Oleg Nesterov has been working hard in closing all the holes that can > > lead to race conditions between deleting an event and accessing an event > > debugfs file. This included a fix to the debugfs system (acked by Greg > > Kroah-Hartman). We think that all the holes have been patched and > > hopefully we don't find more. I haven't marked all of them for stable > > because I need to examine them more to figure out how far back some of > > the changes need to go. > > Sigh, that's quite some churn still - unless these bugs were introduced in > the v3.11 merge window (i.e. are genuine _regressions_), shouldn't such > invasive fixes really go into v3.12 instead? Some of these changes I could have pushed out in an earlier -rc, but we were still discussing exactly how to fix these races, and I wanted the right fix not the quickest fix. Not to mention, I wanted to heavily test a lot of these changes which meant taking time to do so. We have a good idea what the problem was, we wanted the best fix for the issue. Now are these regressions? For 3.11, probably not. I think some of these bugs can cause crashes back to at least 3.4, perhaps even 3.0. If I can crash 3.0 which means it's not a regression, does that mean I should wait for 3.12 and then push everything to stable? Is that what we decided to do in that "when to use stable tag" discussion we had? > > I see that some of the fixes here fix issues that your earlier post-rc1 > rounds of non-regression fixes introduced to begin with. That's really not > a good pattern either IMO. Not really. The earlier fixes closed some of the holes but were not good enough. They didn't cause more regressions, but the method use to fix the regressions it was trying to solve wasn't going to work when we saw the extent of the regressions that had to be fixed. Oleg came up with a better method, which meant that we had to undo the original fix, for a even better fix. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/